Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[carbonjam72]

Nick van der Leek and his co-writer Lisa Wilson (_?) are established authors, with 24 published books, including crime relating to Jodi Arias and Oscar Pistorius.

AFAICS Nick has properly attributed quotes. As you know, court documents and testimony are in the public domain and are not copyrighted.

Truth is, an individual with a known aggressive agenda, complained to Amazon, who of course had to be seen to act.

Were all of these 24 books, SELF-PUBLISHED?

Just asking, it makes a difference. Gabrella Carlizzi self professed psychic medium who provided much of Mignini's satanic sect theories) also had many self-published books.

Also btw, "the selection, coordination and arrangement" of public domain material is also considered copyrightable.

Its hard to justify a malicious selfish act of mercenary greed by this bottom feeding duo of pseudo authors palming off other's work as their own, but feel free to enjoy the fruits of their work, or their assimilation of the works of others as the case may be.

As for reading a copy of it, now that Amazon pulled the plug, I'm not sure its available anywhere. I've hear the author is giving it away, but who wants to go there?

I wouldn't be too fast to think Amazon caved to some imagined public pressure, or perhaps the Knox PR super-tanker, as that idiotic meme goes. Jimbo Wales at Wikipedia had a look at this case and had to conclude there was a cult of wack-jobs haunting his web sites as well.

There's a reason smart, professional, accomplished people, and literally every responsible expert who has looked at this case will tell you its been a gross miscarriage of justice. The guiters and Knox haters are uniformly broken, sick, stupid people. Scratch the surface, you'll see what I mean.

Its a shame these two authors hadn't spent more time trying to do an honest days work and illuminate a miscarriage of justice, rather than trying to make a nickel off of other people's tragedies. Character is fate.

 

[Vixen]

Firstly, we have to establish the facts as we go. You cannot allow yourself to hop about from one unresolved point to another. You must proceed from a factual not interpretable basis and you have not solidified in your mind yet the facts from which any interpretation should be derived.

So, take a moment, please, before we go on, to reflect on the error in the factual basis from which you are trying to manufacture an interpretation.

Your contention that Amanda did not inform Romanelli her room was ransacked is wrong. Your contention that Amanda stated that she was so alarmed by her open front door that she immediately banged frantically on Kercher's, is wrong. Your contention that the postale police discovered the washing machine operating and finishing its cycle, is wrong. Your contention that cell tower evidence is capable of supporting claims to be able accurately to pinpoint Amanda's location in support of a guilt based interpretation and exclude the possibility of her being at another, is wrong.
Your misrepresentation of the facts prevents you from interpreting events fairly.

I would rather you discovered the facts for yourself rather than provide them for you. The evidence is readily accessible to you and there is no excuse for you to ignore it and make up your own version.

Now, if you want to go on and make further claims with regard to the appropriateness of Amanda's actions with regard to the timing of events, then you have to understand the facts with regard to the known timing of these events. This will, or should ensure that you do not employ error on which to base an argument you make.

One of the explicit difficulties you have is understanding the difference between events as recounted from Amanda's first visit to the cottage and her second.

But one thing for you to mull on with regard to your latest post is to appreciate that since there was nobody to witness Amanda's presence at the cottage in the morning, there was no need to acknowledge it. Your interpretation relies on Amanda being involved in subterfuge all the way up to the discovery of the body. Yet, she has raised the alarm, immediately upon leaving the flat after her first visit, saying that something does not feel right to her and she is concerned. Why, if she is guilty, would she do this? How can it help her? Why would she place herself at the cottage? Why would she not just leave, quietly, say nothing to anyone, get in the car and drive to Gubbio?

I already reproduced for you the TIMES early report the police told their reporter they arrived just as a washing machine cycle was ending. Amanda did not contact Filomena to let her know her room had been trashed. As no doubt the police were just pulling up in front of her as Filomena rang her Amanda thought she'd better mention the "chaos". How come Filomena some half an hour's drive away at top speed, was immediately alarmed at 12:07 and yet Raf didn't call the police until almost an hour later, and he was on the spot.

The smell of the decaying corpse must have been terrible. Filomena got Luca to breakdown Mez' door as soon as she arrived 13:05.

Yes, Amanda "raised the alarm something must be wrong" almost an hour later after having breakfast with Raf. Hardly "alarm", apathy would be more apposite.

Why would she not tiptoe off to Gubbio? (a) The washing machine cycle had not finished. In the TIMES early report, a cop sardonically stated the bra at Mez' feet "had yet to be washed" and, most salient, (b) the police turned up UNEXPECTEDLY.

 

[Sergei Walankov]

Nick van der Leek isn't a published anything. He's a guy who puts stuff on the internet, just like the rest of us. The vain and pretentious fashion in which he chooses to tart up his work does not impart him with authority.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Raffaele called, but not to report stolen property

Yet Raf did not call the police until 12:47, and to say nothing had been stolen.

Amanda at no time at all called the police.

IIRC Raffaele called the police to tell them about the condition of the flat, and it was the police who asked whether or not anything had been stolen. I don't find his answer suspicious, but YMMV. Amanda did not have as good a command of Italian as Raffaele did. The postal police, who were in possession of more information than those at the flat, did not break the door down themselves.

 

[Sergei Walankov]

I already reproduced for you the TIMES early report the police told their reporter they arrived just as a washing machine cycle was ending ... In the TIMES early report, a cop sardonically stated the bra at Mez' feet "had yet to be washed" and, most salient, (b) the police turned up UNEXPECTEDLY.

Proving only that the cops were feeding a huge volume of nonsense to the media, who were reporting it uncritically.

 

[MichaelB]

I actually bought that Nick van der Leeks "book". The guy is a fraud and a fantasist. His reconstruction is absolutely disturbing and some sick ****. It's that bad he makes people like Peter Quennel look sane and rational.

The majority of the "book" is quoting old tabloid articles and 20% is Karen's timeline and then he adds little comments along the way psychoanalysing it all and doing junk "statement analysis".

The guy is also extremely stupid. He writes there was Meredith's blood on the knife, even Amanda's blood was on the knife.

It seems like he's just some opportunist dirtbag looking to make a quick buck. He timed it badly showing up a month after the acquittal think there'd still be people interested in buying his drivel.

 

[Vixen]

IIRC Raffaele called the police to tell them about the condition of the flat, and it was the police who asked whether or not anything had been stolen. I don't find his answer suspicious, but YMMV. Amanda did not have as good a command of Italian as Raffaele did. The postal police, who were in possession of more information than those at the flat, did not break the door down themselves.

Battistelli explained that Postal Police were not allowed to. Had not Amanda assured him the door locked was "situation normal", then they might well have been able to use their discretion and gain forcible entry, in the public interest.

 

[Vixen]

I actually bought that Nick van der Leeks "book". The guy is a fraud and a fantasist. His reconstruction is absolutely disturbing and some sick ****. It's that bad he makes people like Peter Quennel look sane and rational.

The majority of the "book" is quoting old tabloid articles and 20% is Karen's timeline and then he adds little comments along the way psychoanalysing it all and doing junk "statement analysis".

The guy is also extremely stupid. He writes there was Meredith's blood on the knife, even Amanda's blood was on the knife.

He's just some opportunist dirtbag looking to make a quick buck. Apparently he's already cut and pasting writing another one.

Nick only came to the case fairly recently, so there are one or two factual errors or omissions. However, I found his content analysis of Amanda's words and actions very perceptive and insightful.

Res ipsa loquitor: Amanda speaks for herself and if it is unsavoury then by her own lips she has made it so.

 

[MichaelB]

Anyways on to some new info.

Deposition of Alessando Capasso: He made a statement together with Stefanai Tommasi. He states that he is was responsible for the prank call. He had a €100 bonus for his cell phone credit and so he would make prank calls. On 31-Oct-2007 he was in a Pizzeria named Ghiottone with his friends to celebrate Halloween and they called various numbers including 075/451595 from his mobile (which was shown to the Police) at 21:48. He remembers saying "be careful because you've got a bomb in your toilet".

The odd thing is the date in the deposition for the prank call is Oct 31 even though Lana says she received it on Nov 1 and the cops turned up. Deposition states he showed his phones call log to the cops when he made his statement. So there's a discrepancy.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/2007-11-03-Witness-deposition-Capasso.pdf

Thanks to Teddy IIP for helping read all of these.

 

[anglolawyer]

Vixen, 'pro-guilt' is not a term of abuse. I am pro-guilt in some cases. It just a shorthand way of saying you favour one theory rather than another. No one (not 'noone') is objectifying you, whatever that might mean.

Saying all of which, and following as best I can your continued evasions in your, er, 'discussion' with Kauffer, I do wonder whether you wouldn't feel more at home posting in the comment section of the Daily Mail.

 

[Bill Williams]

Battistelli explained that Postal Police were not allowed to. Had not Amanda assured him the door locked was "situation normal", then they might well have been able to use their discretion and gain forcible entry, in the public interest.

So, Battistelli explained that the Postal Police were not allowed to break down Meredith's door? LOL.

 

[Bill Williams]

Inspector Battistelli testified he arrived 12:35. If you are referring to Raf's stepmother, yes, there was an extraordinary plethora of calls between Raf and his dad. Being a native Italian with a sister in the carabinieri, he had no excuse for not calling the police ASAP.

Battistelli was wrong. For what reason he would lie to the court is unknown. Even the first convicting Judge did not believe him, Judge Massei said that the postal police arrived AFTER Raffaele's calls to the Carabinieri, namely, "just before 1 pm."

You have been corrected on this multiple times, yet you still post these inaccuracies. Why?

For my money, you are slow-flooding this thread.

 

[Bill Williams]

Amanda at no time at all called the police.

Raffaele did, just before the unexpected arrival of the Postal Police.

With Amanda's grasp of Italian, what good would it have done for her to call the police. Much like the Postal Police who were on-site thought Amanda and Raffaele (and later, Filomena) were overreacting to the condition of the cottage (outside of Meredith's locked room), what would either of Raffaele or Amanda have said to convince the 112 operator that there was something suspicious going on at the cottage.

Once again, your "suspect-centric" obsession with what Amanda did or didn't do betrays why your thoughts are going off the rails.

 

[js202]

Battistelli was wrong. For what reason he would lie to the court is unknown. Even the first convicting Judge did not believe him, Judge Massei said that the postal police arrived AFTER Raffaele's calls to the Carabinieri, namely, "just before 1 pm."

You have been corrected on this multiple times, yet you still post these inaccuracies. Why?

For my money, you are slow-flooding this thread.

Given "she" will soon exceed my post count accumulated over four years, for my money, the flood has not been especially slow. Though one can devoutly wish it had been slower.

 

[Grinder]

6. One may conclude that the instances of misconduct were intended to "frame" innocent persons. Since the CSC judgment was that the defendants were innocent, it is apparent that the frame was unsuccessful.

The final outcome of the trial doesn't make the other actions framing unless there was intent as in a plan to make an innocent person become convicted.

As Lone Pine said it makes it sound like there was a grand conspiracy to take a couple of innocent kids and make them look guilty knowing or at thinking they were innocent.

 

[Dougm]

Given "she" will soon exceed my post count accumulated over four years, for my money, the flood has not been especially slow. Though one can devoutly wish it had been slower.

Indeed. But with cited sources such as the fake wiki, discredited newspaper reports from 2007, and now Van Der Leek's "book", Vixen is providing a text book example of how not to debate a case. At least not if you want to be taken seriously.

I didn't think someone could come along and do a weaker job than the previous posters who would use Andrea Vogt and Barbie Nadeau as evidence, but I was clearly wrong on that point.

What's next, Vixen, quotes from Will Savive?

 

[Grinder]

Grinder,

DA Michael Nifong committed misconduct with respect to the Duke lacrosse case, but he did not plant evidence. Briefly, he tried to hide exculpatory evidence, and he publicly disparaged the defendants. The ABA model rules limit what a prosecutor may say about a case, and the consensus view is that Nifong well exceeded those limits. Being "Nifonged" definition here.

On June 22, the players' lawyers filed their motion asking Superior Court Judge Osmond Smith, who presided over the case, to hold Nifong in contempt. The players also wanted Nifong to pay for the 60 to 100 hours it took to prove that he misrepresented the DNA evidence. Nifong was charged with having violated at least a dozen laws, rules and court orders designed to protect defendants' rights by playing "a game of hide and seek" with evidence that could have cleared the players. The players' motion also alleged that Nifong's misconduct "shocks the conscience and defies any notion of accident or negligence". Earlier that same month, Judge Smith had filed papers stating that he retained control over the case although the charges had been dismissed, and had the power to impose his own sanctions against Nifong.[82]

The question was IIRC if there were example of criminal charges in the US for defamation by prosecutors in court..

 

[Grinder]

How about being Comodied, meaning to have your reputation go into the toilet?

 

[Vixen]

Raffaele did, just before the unexpected arrival of the Postal Police.

With Amanda's grasp of Italian, what good would it have done for her to call the police. Much like the Postal Police who were on-site thought Amanda and Raffaele (and later, Filomena) were overreacting to the condition of the cottage (outside of Meredith's locked room), what would either of Raffaele or Amanda have said to convince the 112 operator that there was something suspicious going on at the cottage.

Once again, your "suspect-centric" obsession with what Amanda did or didn't do betrays why your thoughts are going off the rails.

Oh gosh. The "Amanda didn't speak Italian" explanation no. umpty-9.

 

[bagels]

Oh gosh. The "Amanda didn't speak Italian" explanation no. umpty-9.

It seems a reasonable point to me.